Catholics and free will

[Sophia]

The miracle of Lanciano would say otherwise. But if Christ’s own words won’t convince you, miracles won’t either.

Actually, Christ’s words would be convincing… coming from his own mouth.

 

[Agathon]

Agathon:

The miracle of Lanciano would say otherwise. But if Christ’s own words won’t convince you, miracles won’t either.

Actually, Christ’s words would be convincing… coming from his own mouth.

So His words recorded by the Gospel writers won’t convince you. Then how would you believe if He Himself appeared to you?

 

[Sophia]

So His words recorded by the Gospel writers won’t convince you. Then how would you believe if He Himself appeared to you?

There is absolutely no evidence that the bible correctly describes what happened. And a LIVE conversation always trumps a dubious record of what supposedly happened. In a live conversation I could ask those important questions, for which there was never a good answer by any apologist. And the answers to those questions would tell me if it is really Christ, or just an impostor.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

But the important point is that I am WILLING. The lack of the communication is not my fault.

If you think you deserve any communication, you don’t. Nobody does.

 

[Sarcelle]

Who said humans made sense?

A doctor I know once told me that several patients of his continue with unhealthy lifestyles in spite of the warnings of future suffering that an unhealthy lifestyle would bring. In spite of the consequences, a lot of still choose to risk the possibility of needlessly suffering instead of changing their ways.

So yes, it is entirely understandable that people will choose hell.

 

[wkj_123]

Is this a serious question?

 

[Agathon]

There is absolutely no evidence that the bible correctly describes what happened.

The fact that those who wrote these Scriptures reportedly saw Him and were willing to die for their faith convinces me.

 

[Gorgias]

Except the Eucharist is not Jesus. And not God. It is just a piece of unleavened bread and a sip of wine. Ask any chemist. And when it comes to this physical reality, the chemist (but not the alchemist or the theologian) is the authority.

Yeah, but by that standard, you’re not a person: you’re just a piece of skin and a sip of blood. Ask any chemist. But, when it comes to metaphysical reality, the philosopher and theologian is the authority.

The concept that we did not come from a “first couple” IS still an anathema. What about the “rib-theory”? Is it abandoned now?

Right: one first pair of true humans.

But, “rib theory” requires a belief in a literalistic reading of Genesis chapter 2. The Church allows it, but does not require it. In any case, “from the rib” isn’t a doctrine, so it doesn’t fall under your “changed teaching” criteria.

The church says that we are supposed to follow our conscience. But not unconditionally.

Actually, you’re mistaken. The Church does say that we must follow our conscience unconditionally.

Only if our conscience is “well-formed”.

That’s a distinct requirement.

And what constitutes a “well-formed” conscience? Simple. If the conscience is in perfect synch what the church teaches then it is a well formed conscience.

OK, so… follow the bouncing ball…

• the Church teaches morality
• conscience is the individual’s use of reason to apply moral precepts to a distinct situation
• if conscience is about application of morality, then a ‘well-formed’ conscience is one that understands morality properly

No snark necessary. It’s simple logic.

So why bother with that pesky “conscience”? It would be simpler to say that “everyone must follow what the church says in that specific moment”.

Because conscience has to do with free will. God wants us to apply free will, and do it properly, and not just “follow rules”.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

So why bother with that pesky “conscience”? It would be simpler to say that “everyone must follow what the church says in that specific moment”.

Because the Church doesn’t have a specific teaching for every situation ever that you could come across. A “well-formed conscience” is the ability to quickly and accurately make decisions about the morality of some things that aren’t specifically addressed by the Church.

 

[Sophia]

Yeah, but by that standard, you’re not a person: you’re just a piece of skin and a sip of blood. Ask any chemist. But, when it comes to metaphysical reality, the philosopher and theologian is the authority.

Actually, chemists are much smarter than that. They understand that the “whole” can be different from the sum of its parts.

There are three major problems with your reasoning. The chemist and the physicist and the biologist ALL can substantiate what they assert. They can even teach you how do it on your own, so you don’t have to rely on their words. This is called proper authority.

The philosopher and the theologian are unable to do that. What they say must be accepted on blind faith. What is the difference between the not-yet-consecrated host, and the already-consecrated-host? Physically, chemically or biologically there is no difference. The alleged difference cannot be detected by any means or experiments. So the duck-principle is in effect: "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… it is a duck and not a tiger.

The second problem is that the theologian and the philosopher are both self-proclaimed “authorities”. Ask ten theologians and/or eleven philosophers and you will get at least twelve diametrically opposing answers. How to decide which one is right, since there is no objective, measurable experiment to separate the wheat from the chaff? There is none.

The third problem is that you view a house to be a pile of bricks, some wood and a little iron, maybe a shard of glass… thrown haphazardly into a random dump. Just like the house is more than its constituent parts, I am also more then that skin and blood. The proof is that I can conduct a conversation with you, and the freshly killed carcass cannot. Jevver heard of emerging attributes?

Right: one first pair of true humans.

With their immortal souls, presumably. Unfortunately (for you) that immortal soul is also undetectable. Even if they evolved from some pre-human ancestors, that alleged “soul” is just another unsubstantiated assumption. You should remember that even the church does not claim when the moment of “ensoulment” occurs. That should tell you something important.

Continued below…

 

[Sophia]

But, “rib theory” requires a belief in a literalistic reading of Genesis chapter 2. The Church allows it, but does not require it. In any case, “from the rib” isn’t a doctrine, so it doesn’t fall under your “changed teaching” criteria.

Thank God for the cherry picking. By the way, you were required to accept the literal interpretation of Genesis for a very long time, and this requirement has CHANGED only nowadays. Dissent was called a heresy, punishable by death. And the interpretation is definitely part of the “faith and morals”, even if it has not been elevated to same standard as Mary’s perpetual virginity and assumption. (Which are the ONLY two ex-cathedra utterances.)

Actually, you’re mistaken. The Church does say that we must follow our conscience unconditionally.

That’s a distinct requirement.

Not distinct at all. The other side of the same coin.

OK, so… follow the bouncing ball…

• the Church teaches morality
• conscience is the individual’s use of reason to apply moral precepts to a distinct situation
• if conscience is about application of morality, then a ‘well-formed’ conscience is one that understands morality properly

No snark necessary. It’s simple logic.

Provided, of course that one accepts the church as the proper authority. For which there is no objective measurement method (unlike the chemist…) it is based upon faith… blind faith. And not even the Catholics (myself included) accept every utterance of the church as unquestionable. The church claims infallibility in the questions of faith and morals, but the recent hesitation of condemning the sexual scandals shows that this “infallibility” is only self-proclaimed. More and more people see through this, just look at the recent referendum in Ireland.

Because conscience has to do with free will. God wants us to apply free will, and do it properly, and not just “follow rules”.

And if our conscience is ill-formed, then we shall get the proper “reward”, eternal damnation. Yummy. Not much of a “free will” there. Remember that the Decalogue is not 10 suggestions, rather 10 commands. And “commands” which are reinforced by the threat of eternal torture have nothing to do with “free will”.

The mafia uses the same technique: “Obey and you will be rewarded, disobey and you will be punished”. Of course not even the mafia would have the nerve to say: “Hey, you ‘chose’ to have your kneecaps be blasted away”. So that reward we “chose” (the eternal fire), it was imposed upon us by God. Did we choose it having full information with open eyes? Nope, the only information comes from the unquestioning acceptance of what the church happens to teach at that specific moment. Did I say that the “church teaches”? Oops, that is imprecise. What some members of the church say about that specific subject in that specific moment.

 

[po18guy]

Myopic view, I think. God’s will is easy to discern. Jesus gave us the plan. We follow it as best we can, using love as our foundation. Love desires the good of the other. Love does not count the cost. You do not need a bunch of rules to challenge, or complete understanding as a motivator, or complex knowledge. All we need is the rule of love, tempered by prudence and the other virtues.

We err if we over-think this and complicate it with “yeah, but…” God is utterly and completely simple. We naturally try to impose complexity upon Him, to our own confusion and consternation. This problem with making things complex began in Genesis 3.

We must embrace mystery, as we enter into dangerous territory to demand complete understanding. All that we need are the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There for the asking - and with patience.

 

[wkj_123]

We must embrace mystery, as we enter into dangerous territory to demand complete understanding

This seems like the old “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain theology”. If something your claiming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and the response is basically well don’t think to much about it, that’s a good indication it’s a problem

 

[po18guy]

I think you may be under emphasizing the spiritual realm and focusing too much on the intellectual. Both are required, but how can a creation understand the Creator? The clay pot attempting to understand the potter. Your position strikes me as vaguely reminiscent of the Gnostics. Probably wrong there, though.

 

[Gorgias]

There are three major problems with your reasoning. The chemist and the physicist and the biologist ALL can substantiate what they assert. They can even teach you how do it on your own, so you don’t have to rely on their words. This is called proper authority.

The philosopher and the theologian are unable to do that. What they say must be accepted on blind faith.

Not even close. Scientists use the tools of their domain to substantiate their claims, and philosophers and theologians use the tools of their domains to substantiate their claims.

The tools of science are empirical measurements. Asking philosophy and theology to substantiate their claims empirically is an error of category. So is asserting that, since philosophy and theology don’t deal in empirical measurement, they therefore deal merely in “blind faith.”

With their immortal souls, presumably. Unfortunately (for you) that immortal soul is also undetectable.

Which is why science cannot address the theological claims of ‘ensouled humanity’. Yes. Thank you for recognizing that difference in domain.

You should remember that even the church does not claim when the moment of “ensoulment” occurs.

Actually, it does:

CCC:

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced” by the parents – and also that it is immortal.

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is created immediately by God.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Sophia:

That should tell you something important.

It does. It tells me that you know not of what you speak.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yet the foundation of science rests on mathematics. Mathematics which also relies on postulates and axioms that must be accepted as true.

Are you also going to discount mathematicians for doing the very same thing that philosophers and theologians do?